| | Below I examine a quote in the movie that portrays John Adams having the position that liberty is being entitled to food and cloths.
At the end of the first episode, I quote the actor portraying John Adams at a conference:
Let it be known that British liberties are not the grants of princes or parliaments. That many of our rights are inherent and essential. Agreed on as maxims and established as preliminaries even before parliament existed. We have a right to them: derived from our maker. Our forefathers have earned and bought liberty for them the expense of their ease, of their estates, pleasures, and their blood. Liberty is not build on the doctrine that a few nobles have a right to inherit the earth. No. No. It stands on this principal, that the meanest and the lowest of the people, are by the unalterable undividable laws, of God and nature as well entitled to the benefit to air to breath, light to see, food to eat, and cloths to wear as nobles or the king. That is liberty. And liberty will reign in America! (Cheers in the crowd). So my major question at this point was: Did John Adams actually think that we are "entitled to the benefit to air to breath, light to see, food to eat, and cloths to wear"? Logically speaking, if nobles are not entitled to such things, then the lowest people being just as entitled would not be entitled to such things either. But the message I get is "Nobles are entitled to food to eat, and cloths to wear, and so are the lowest men". In other words, everyone is entitled to food to eat, and cloths to wear. And then it is said that "that is liberty" as in, being entitled to things is liberty? Is this John Adams position?
I read through "John Adams, Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law, 1765" Which seems to be the source of the first couple sentences of the speech given at the end of the episode. Particularly I was looking for a definition of liberty, but John Adams did not provide one in this dissertation. Here are my notes which I think contradict the message in the episode:
And the preservation of the means of knowledge among the lowest ranks, is of more importance to the public than all the property of all the rich men in the country. It is even of more consequence to the rich themselves, and to their posterity. The only question is, whether it is a public emolument; and if it is, the rich ought undoubtedly to contribute, in the same proportion as to all other public burdens, — that is, in proportion to their wealth, which is secured by public expenses. Note that Adams here thinks that education of everyone is important, but he is not sure whether the rich should be forced to pay for the poor's education. By saying that educating the poor is more important than the property of rich people, it sounds like he would choose taxation of the rich if the poor couldn't learn human rights in the free market.
Some actual complaints that are closer to examples:
Are we not brethren and fellow subjects with those in Britain, only under a somewhat different method of legislation, and a totally different method of taxation? But admitting we are children, have not children a right to complain when their parents are attempting to break their limbs, to administer poison, or to sell them to enemies for slaves? But it seems very manifest from the Stamp Act itself, that a design is formed to strip us in a great measure of the means of knowledge, by loading the press, the colleges, and even an almanac and a newspaper, with restraints and duties; and to introduce the inequalities and dependencies of the feudal system, by taking from the poorer sort of people all their little subsistence, and conferring it on a set of stamp officers, distributors, and their deputies. In earlier statements in this dissertation, John Adams noted the importance of the freedom of the press and praised the printing press. He was concerned about censorship of the press by British criticism. The Stamp Act may have been a way for the British to control what could be printed, along with directly increasing the taxes on the colonies. I think this seems to be the major focus of his dissertation: to establish that education and spreading of information about human rights and the purpose/actions of government be highly accessible to everyone, not limited by government.
|
|
